Kent Bernard

Kent Bernard

Adjunct Professor of Law

  • Kent Bernard brings a unique perspective to antitrust, healthcare and the interplay between U.S. and other competition law regimes, topics on which he has practiced, spoken and written.

    After starting his career in a law firm, Mr. Bernard moved in house in 1978. From 1980 until 2008 he held a series of increasingly responsible in-house legal positions at Pfizer Inc., retiring as Vice President & Assistant General Counsel and Deputy Managing Partner of the Pfizer Legal Division.

    Mr. Bernard's responsibilities ranged widely, from helping to acquire and then being the General Counsel of Schneider Medintag, a maker of sophisticated interventional cardiology devices that grew to become the most profitable company within the Pfizer Medical Devices group, to working on matters across the parent company spectrum including:

    Planning, structuring and implementing worldwide antitrust and competition law clearances for some of the largest acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry;

    Establishing direct relations with competition authorities in the U.S., the EU, and elsewhere; setting up a worldwide network of law firms; providing and coordinating worldwide legal support for marketing and other programs.

    Responding to U.S. and foreign government investigations; running major antitrust cases;

    Setting up and running an outreach program to the U.S. State Attorneys General.

    Also working with Government Affairs personnel on Federal legislative matters;

    • 1980 - 2008 Pfizer Inc., New York, NY
    • 1978 - 1980 William H. Rorer, Inc., Fort Washington, PA
    • 1975 - 1978 Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA


    University of Pennsylvania Law School, JD, 1975,
    magna cum laude, Order of the Coif,

    Articles Editor University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

    Colgate University, BA, 1972,
    cum laude, high honors in philosophy, Phi Beta Kappa.

  • Recapturing the Business Side of Innovation in Antitrust Merger Analysis, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (August 2021)

    Getting a Handle on Prescription Drug Pricing – A Modestly Radical Proposal, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Summer 2019, (2)

    Taking Quality Of Healthcare Seriously in Provider Merger Analysis, 11 Saint Louis J. of Health Law & Policy 161 (Issue 1, 2017)

    Private Equity Meets Antitrust....Complications Ensue, CPI Antitrust Chronicle (Winter 2018 (1)

    An Integrative Approach to Evaluating Healthcare Provider Mergers in the Era of The ACA.
    Antitrust, Vol. 30, No. 3, Summer 2016

    Is Full Transatlantic Competition Law Convergence Realistic, or Even Desirable? CPI Antitrust Chronicle (December 2015 (1))

    Transatlantic Competition Law Convergence: Looking for a Chimera? Ian S. Forrester | A Scot without Borders - Liber Amicorum - Volume II (2015)

    The Affordable Care Act Efficiencies Defense in Section 7 Cases: FTC v. St. Luke’s and Antitrust UnicornsCPI Antitrust Chronicle (April 2015 (2))

    When the Price Isn’t Right – Lundbeck and a Path to Analyze Competition in Drug Research and Development59 The Antitrust Bulletin 527 (Fall 2014)

    When Does Interpretation Become Rewriting? The FTC Runs With The Actavis DecisionCPI Antitrust Chronicle (September 2013 (2))

    Hatch-Waxman Patent Case Settlements – The Supreme Court Churns the Swamp.

    15 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 123 (2014)

    U.S. Antitrust Enforcement in 2013: Where are We Going, and Why? CPI Antitrust Chronicle (January 2013 (1))

    Making Victims Whole - A Restitution Approach to Cartel Damages, Concurrences 1– 2012 (2012)

    A Trip Around the Cartel Victims Remedy BuffetThe CPI Antitrust Chronicle (November 2011(1))

    Innovation Market Theory and Practice:An Analysis and Proposal for ReformCompetition Policy International, Spring 2011, Vol. 7, No.1 (2011)

    U.S. Antitrust 2025: How Have we Handled the Bulletproof Cartels? The CPI Antitrust Journal (December 2010 (2))

    The Astra Zeneca Decision in the General Court: Some Basic Observations and a Few Interesting Questions The CPI Antitrust Journal (September 2010 (2))

    Private Antitrust Litigation in the European Union – Why Does the EC Want to Embrace What the U.S. FTC is Trying to Avoid?Global Competition Litigation Review (Issue 2, 2010) 69

    The Intel Cases – Legal Convergence or Leaps of Faith? The CPI Antitrust Journal (February 2010(2))

    Some Thoughts on Article 82 Jurisprudence – If the Government Always Wins, Should Private Litigants Win as Well?Global Competition Policy (August 2009, Release 1)

    Gatekeeper Issues: Seeing What is In Front of You – A Transatlantic Lesson in Two Cases, 2009, Issue 4, European Competition Law Review 189

    Solving the Wrong Problem - The Preliminary Report on the EC Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry: What Have We Really Learned? Global Competition Policy (February 2009, Release 2)

    The EU’s Drug Problem – Can the U.S. Provide an Answer? Competition Law Insight (10 February 2009)

    Monopolization/Abuse of Dominance and the Research Based Pharmaceutical Industry – The Chilling Effect of Uncertain Rules of Enforcement, in B. Hawk (ed.) International Antitrust Law & Policy, 2008 Fordham Competition Law Institute, Chapter 14 (2009)

    The 2008 EC Sector Inquiry Regarding Pharmaceuticals: What Does It Mean from a Research-Based Company PerspectiveGlobal Competition Policy (November 2008)

    An Effective,Practical Approach to International Competition Law ComplianceVolume 1, Issue 3International In-House Counsel Journal 499 (2008)

    The EC Sector Inquiry Regarding Pharmaceuticals: Some Thoughts from a U.S. PerspectiveGlobal Competition Policy(February 2008)

    Private Damages Actions: A U.S. Perspective on Importing U.S. Damages Actions to the EUeCCP (October 2007)

    Antitrust Treatment of Pharmaceutical Patent Settlements: The Need for Context and Fidelity to First Principles15 Fed. Cir. B.J. 617 (2006) [With Will Tom]

    E. Disner, Antitrust for Business: Questions and Answers (1989) – Contributing Editor

    On Judgements and Settlements in Antitrust Cases: When Should Damages Be Trebled? 56 St. John’s L, Rev. 1 (1981)

    Backhauling, A Legal Justification15 New England L. Rev. 799 (1980)

    Handling the “News”: A Proposed Approach for the Federal Trade Commission21 Ariz. L. Rev. 1021 (1980)

    The Actions of the Antitrust Plaintiff: Law, Policy and a Modest Proposal16 Duquesne L.Rev. 307 (1980)

    Certified Questions in the Supreme Court: In Defense of an Option, 83 Dickinson L. Rev. 31 (1978)

    Vouching to Warranties of Quality: A Legal Anachronism? 55 J. Urban Law, 73 (1977)

    Churches,Members, and the Role of the Courts: Towards a Contractual Analysis, 51 Notre Dame Lawyer 545 (1976)

    Structures of American Military Justice125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 397 (1976)

    Comment: The Environmental Court Proposal: Requiem, Analysis and Counterproposal, 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 676 (1975)